Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, October 5, 2016, 11:13 PM
Town Square
Portola Valley council says 'no,' again, to fixed license-plate cameras
Original post made on Oct 6, 2016
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, October 5, 2016, 11:13 PM
Comments (9)
Posted by Dick
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 6, 2016 at 7:51 am
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 6, 2016 at 7:51 am
Is the report mentioning that there are "studies that test the effectiveness of (the cameras)" available online? If not, any reference to a study that questions the effectiveness or proves ineffectiveness would be appreciated.
Posted by Craig Hughes
a resident of Portola Valley: Woodside Highlands
on Oct 6, 2016 at 10:13 am
a resident of Portola Valley: Woodside Highlands
on Oct 6, 2016 at 10:13 am
@Dick -- the excellent staff report is available on the Portola Valley town website as part of the council agenda packet. It's pretty long/big (about 70MB PDF download), but a very good read, well put-together, and includes a lot of info on the sources used.
Web Link
Posted by Dave Boyce
Almanac staff writer
on Oct 6, 2016 at 10:17 am
Dave Boyce is a registered user.
Almanac staff writer
on Oct 6, 2016 at 10:17 am
Dave Boyce is a registered user.
Here's a link. Turn to Page 816.
Web Link
As Craig Hughes noted, it's a large file and takes a bit of time to download.
Posted by Dick
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 7, 2016 at 12:50 am
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 7, 2016 at 12:50 am
Craig, Dave, thanks for the links. It's indeed a good read (still have to read the attachments). I noticed in particular "that the capacity of law enforcement to investigate hits generated by ALPRs may somewhat limit the technology's success".
It may be of interest that here in Netherlands a trial has started to outsource the tracing of cars to certified private agencies, once the police ALPR generates a hit and the police is not able to follow up.
Posted by Richard Hertz
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Oct 7, 2016 at 7:54 am
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Oct 7, 2016 at 7:54 am
No LPRs.
Posted by Portola Al
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Oct 7, 2016 at 1:14 pm
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Oct 7, 2016 at 1:14 pm
Given the low incidence of crime in PV I think its unnecessary and an invasion of privacy.
Posted by Burglary victim
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Oct 8, 2016 at 8:53 pm
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Oct 8, 2016 at 8:53 pm
The amount of burglary loss in dollars was NOT reported by the town council. Only the incidences of burglary relative to other communities. There are other communities which ALPRs have successfully been used to apprehend stolen property, most recently Tiburon.
Posted by B Curtis Eaves
a resident of Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
on Oct 28, 2016 at 11:12 pm
a resident of Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
on Oct 28, 2016 at 11:12 pm
I assume the point that has been made, but I will make it again. A license reading and recording camera system could be easily be programed to never record movement for local license plates (eg. citizens of Portola Valley). With such a system, there is no loss of privacy, whatever, for locals. Aside from a moderate expense, I see no downside for a license reading and recording camera system for Portola Valley.
Posted by LawAndOrder
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
on Oct 29, 2016 at 11:31 am
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
on Oct 29, 2016 at 11:31 am
The Wall Street Journal recently had a well-written article about affluent communities having illicit drug users, such as fentanyl and opiates home-delivered. Possibly a reason for anti-ALPR voices.
Don't miss out
on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Stay informed.
Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.
